Abstract [en]

Today, the effect of greenhouse gases is a well-known phenomenon. Not so long ago 195 countries signed the Paris agreement, a document which states that the countries will work together to achieve the goal of keeping the global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Even before the entrance of this agreement measures were taken to reduce global warming. The introduction of an emission trading scheme is one such measure. The scheme tries to create economic incentives for companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. If no efforts are made in order to reduce their emissions, the companies will face extensive costs. However, the whole idea of an emission trading scheme is threatened by the fact that there is no guidance on how companies should report emission allowances in their financial reports. As a result of the lack of guidance companies will have to decide on their own if and how they should account for emission allowances. A further consequence of this is that many companies do not account for emission allowances at all. It is also a big variation among the companies that have chosen to account for emission allowances.In this study we investigate the variety through a different perspective. The purpose of this study is to explain why companies use different accounting methods when they account for emission allowances from an Anglo-Saxon and Continental view. The applied method of this study is a quantitative content analysis with qualitative elements on 32 Anglo-Saxon and 32 Continental companies´ annual reports. All of the companies are participants on an emission trading scheme and comply with IFRS.The study shows that there is a difference between Anglo-Saxon and Continental accounting for emission allowances. The study also shows that this difference can be explained by the characteristics that are typical for each accounting tradition. In general, Anglo-Saxon companies disclose less about their emission allowances than the Continental companies do. This fact can probably be explained by the audit profession’s strong position in the Anglo-Saxon accounting tradition. The study also shows that the Anglo-Saxon companies that have chosen to disclose are guided by the objective of their financial statements. Furthermore, the study shows that Continental companies use several different valuation methods, which can be explained by the strong connection between tax and accounting practice in the Continental countries. Another difference is that Continental companies more frequently gross the liability in the balance sheet, which is explained by the fact that Continental companies are considered more prudent. This study highlights how corporate accounting choices are influenced by the countries’ accounting traditions and confirm that these traditions still exist. These conclusions can provide a new perspective in the current effort to develop guidance regarding the accounting of emission allowances. We believe that guidance is necessary if the emission trading scheme shall fulfil its purpose, which it currently does not.